Building relationships to care for country
From Griffith REVIEW Edition 2: Dreams of Land
© Copyright Griffith University & the author.
Written by Rick Farley (dec.)
Download the complete article PDF
Rick Farley's biography and other articles by this writer
Maurice Binstead would start to whistle every time we came into the Arcadia Valley in central Queensland. Roddy Smith is filled with peace at Lake Victoria, near Mildura. Lyndon Schneiders is awestruck and protective of the unique landscapes of Cape York.
Together with many other men and women, they are the human face of the debate about how to manage Australia's natural resources more sustainably. That's the debate we have to have, because we cannot keep running down our resource base the way we are doing now.
Maurice is a gnarled old cattleman, filled with good sense and knowledge about the beef industry and cattle country. He always reduced his cattle numbers early in a drought and appreciated the interconnections between people, industry and the land. His spirits lift noticeably when he comes into his country and he cares deeply for it.
Roddy is an elder of the Barkindji Aboriginal nation and Lake Victoria is an important spiritual place for him. It contains many hundreds of Aboriginal graves and there was an infamous massacre nearby on the Rufus River. The country talks to him and he is part of it. His face glows with contentment and certainty when he is at the lake.
Lyndon is a campaigner for The Wilderness Society and has spent a big part of his life as an environmental activist on Cape York. He understands the politics of the environment debate but also has a deep sense of the natural values that need protection.
I KNOW THE THREE OF THEM. They all come from different backgrounds and perspectives, but they all want to care better for the country. They represent the interests that are critical to better outcomes for natural-resource management.
Maurice is part of the farm sector. About 60 per cent of Australia is covered by agricultural enterprises, mostly pastoral properties.
Another 20 per cent is controlled by Aboriginal people like Roddy. Their identity comes from the land and waters and they have rights to protect their culture. They want to have their values recognised in decisions about how country is used and managed.
Lyndon and the environment movement have standing because of their public support and political weight – their preferences can influence the outcome of seats in federal and state elections.
All three interests need to be accommodated as we consider future directions for natural-resource management. Significant changes are needed but comprehensive outcomes cannot be achieved only on public land such as national parks and state forests.
The active co-operation of the farm sector and Aboriginal people is essential because they control 80 per cent of the land mass. Equally, the involvement of the environment movement is necessary because government recognises the public legitimacy of its agenda.
I have worked with all three groups over the past 30 years. My observation is that a basic building block exists – common care for country – but it has not been harnessed properly yet. There is a natural strategic alliance so far unrealised because relationships are not sufficiently mature in most areas.
I have also come to understand that changes in the landscape only occur where everyone owns local outcomes. In the last analysis, those who control land have to be prepared to undertake changes in the management of their own places and that is very difficult to enforce.
There's still some way to go to build the relationships necessary to achieve broad localised change on the ground.
FROM THE FARM SECTOR'S PERSPECTIVE, there is considerable suspicion and frustration. Members of the farming community note that 85 per cent of Australia's population now lives within 50 kilometres of the coast and doesn't know much about life west of the ranges. They therefore worry about an uninformed debate and political irrelevancy.
They are also frustrated that the rules keep changing and there is not enough integration between government programs and too much red tape.
Not so long ago, lease conditions required land clearing. There were tax incentives for clearing country, but not for replanting. Farmers were encouraged to take up additional water allocations to boost irrigation and exports. Those signals from government reflected knowledge which, at the time, was incomplete.
The contribution that land clearing makes to salinity, declining water quality and greenhouse gases is now better understood and caps are being imposed. However, many farmers are concerned about the process by which government is making decisions.
Most recognise the need for changes to overall natural-resource management and they have formed thousands of Landcare groups throughout Australia. Government also recognises the need for change but has not been able to respond as a whole. There are catchment blueprints, water plans, salinity plans, legislative provisions for land clearing and protecting threatened species and they never seem to come together properly. Funding for community networks has also been interrupted and short-term.
Farmers argue that they have no certainty about future management, which affects their ability to plan and borrow. They argue that where there is a public interest in land management the landholder should not have to meet all the costs – if there is a public benefit, there should be a public investment. They also believe insufficient resources have been allocated for management of public lands, particularly national parks.
ABORIGINAL PEOPLE HAVE NOT BE ENGAGED EFFECTIVELY in natural-resource management. There are both practical and institutional reasons. Many communities have to concentrate on day-to-day survival and to prioritise their efforts. It is hard to promote medium– and long-term resource-management projects unless they contain employment or other benefits, eg improved water quality or dust suppression.
Under Aboriginal law, no one can talk for someone else's country so the concept of peak bodies and regional, state and national representatives is alien. Those who come to meetings can only act as funnels to take information back to traditional-owner groups and advise their responses. There is usually no funding for this purpose.
Support to help Aboriginal communities engage in resource management is also insufficient. There were 13 indigenous land-management facilitators from more than 700 full-time positions in various community support networks under the Natural Heritage Trust (NHT). Catchment-management authorities are now seeking to employ Aboriginal officers under NHT2 and the situation, hopefully, will improve.
A chicken-and-egg situation exists. In most cases, catchment-management authorities have not been able to develop structures for engaging traditional owners, so Aboriginal people have little input into funding decisions for programs. The skills base in communities is low and it is hard for that to improve without program funding.